i

RESEARCH REPORT

Leadership Program for Affordable Housing:

Evaluation Study

Yehonatan Almog ♦ Jenya Gorbatsevich

RR-668-14

Leadership Program for Affordable Housing:

Evaluation Study

Yehonatan Almog Jenya Gorbatsevich

May 2014 Jerusalem

Editor: Ronit Ben-Nun

Translation to English: Naomi Halstead

Layout and print production: Leslie Klineman

Myers-JDC-Brookdale Institute

P.O.B. 3886

Jerusalem 91037, Israel

Tel: (02) 655-7400

Fax: (02) 561-2391

Website: www.jdc.org.il/brookdale

1 | P a g e

Executive Summary

1. Background

The leadership program for affordable housing is a multi-sectoral program that was created in the

context of the sharp increase in housing costs incurred by Israeli households and the belief that a

concerted multi-sectoral effort is required to address the challenge. The program was a collaboration

between the Ministry of Construction and Housing and the JDC Institute for Leadership and

Governance, together with senior level professional representatives from ten ministries and

government agencies, local government, civil society organizations and the business sector. It was

implemented under the professional guidance of Dr. Chaim Fialkoff and Dr. Emily Silverman. Myers-

JDC-Brookdale Institute (MJB) was commissioned to evaluate the program.

The program had two components

A process of shared learning about affordable housing and the activities of the various sectors

The development of a plan of action to promote affordable housing.

The program goals were:

1. Gaining knowledge and changing views about affordable housing

2. Developing a multi-sectoral perspective

3. Establishing professional contacts and cooperation among the participants

4. Encouraging greater or new efforts on the part of the participants to promote affordable housing

5. Developing collaborative plans of action to promote affordable housing.

In the course of the program, a decision was made to:

Shorten the learning stage and the overall length of the program (from 8 to 6 months)

Focus the plan of action on formulating guidelines for an affordable housing law. This was in

contrast to the initial thinking that there would be several different group projects.

The current report examines the program's implementation and the extent to which the program

realized its goals.

2. Study Design

The study combined qualitative and quantitative methods of collecting information and analyzing the

findings. This enabled us to present the quantitative findings systematically alongside the

interpretations by the participants and members of staff.

The study used four data-collection methods: a self-report questionnaire distributed to the

participants at the end of the program; semi-structured in-depth interviews with a sample of

participants and staff members at the end of the program; observations of the meetings; and analysis

of program documents (Table 1).

2 | P a g e

Table 1: Data-Collection Methods

Method Quantity

1. Self-report questionnaire 21 questionnaires completed by the participants

2. Semi-structured in-depth interviews 9 interviews with participants

4 interviews with program staff members

3. Observations 6 observations

4. Analysis of documentation Various

Most of the closed questions in the self-report questionnaire used a four point scale ("not at all," "to a

little extent," "to a great extent" and "to a very great extent"). Unless noted otherwise, the

percentages presented in this report relate to the responses "to a great extent" and "to a very great

extent."

3. Realization of Program Goals

The study examined the extent to which the participants and members of staff perceived that the

program had achieved its goals. We present below the main findings with regard to each of the five

goals (see section 1).

3.1 Affordable Housing: Gaining Knowledge and Changing Views

The participants learned about issues related to defining the housing problem and about potential

solutions. They were asked if they gained greater knowledge and if the program had led to a change

in their views:

50% of the participants reported that they gained greater knowledge on issues related to

defining the problem, and 81% on affordable housing solutions

15% to 38% of the participants reported changes in their understanding of various issues

related to defining the problem, and 76% changed their views on affordable housing solutions.

They were further asked whether they had developed new views with respect to the ways they

themselves could act to promote affordable housing:

37% of the participants reported that they had developed new views.

3.2 Development of a Multi-Sectoral Perspective

The program emphasized the development and strengthening of a multi-sectoral perspective, in light

of the perceived need for collective action to address the complexity of the affordable housing issue.

The study examined the impact of the program on two dimensions:

Familiarity with the activities of the other sectors and the assessment of their potential benefits

Inter-sectoral cooperation:

- Knowledge of models of inter-sectoral cooperation on affordable housing

- Assessment of its importance

- Views on areas in which they themselves could best cooperate with other sectors.

3 | P a g e

The study found that:

Most of the participants reported that the program had broadened their knowledge about what

was being done by local government (78%), central government (75%), and the business sector

(71%), and to a lesser extent, what was being done by civil society (33%).

71% of the participants reported that as a result of the program, they had changed their views

regarding the potential contribution of each sector to promoting affordable housing.

81% of the participants reported that they had gained new knowledge about models for inter-

sectoral cooperation and 79% reported that they changed their views about the importance of

inter-sectoral cooperation on affordable housing.

58% of the participants changed their views on areas where they themselves could best

cooperate with the other sectors.

3.3 Establishing Professional Contacts and Cooperation

The program sought to develop and strengthen professional contacts among the program

participants and create practical cooperation among them.

All of the participants reported that they had established new professional contacts and/or

strengthened existing ties with representatives of the government, and most of the participants

had established or strengthened ties with representatives of the other sectors (between 69%

and 78%, depending on the sector).

81% of the participants reported that they had held many or very many informal discussions on

professional issues with other participants during the program, and 62% found these

discussions to be helpful.

17% of the participants reported that they had actually initiated inter-sectoral cooperation as a

result – all of them representatives of the government or the business sector.

However, 72% of the participants noted that they intended to initiate such cooperation in the

future. Furthermore, almost 50% of the participants reported that they had already established

cooperation with representatives from their own sector.

3.4 Greater or New Efforts on the Part of the Participants to Promote Affordable Housing

The program sought to influence the way that participants worked to promote affordable housing.

67% of the participants reported that they were planning to change their practices to promote

affordable housing as a result of participation in the program.

Some 16% of them reported that they were already doing something different to promote

affordable housing as a result of participation in the program.

3.5 Plan of Action to Formulate Guidelines for an Affordable Housing Law

As noted, the group decided to focus on a key shared task: formulating guidelines for an affordable

housing law. Through a process of five intensive meetings, a joint document was produced: a

presentation that included suggested guidelines, unresolved dilemmas and options to consider. It

was presented to the director general of the Ministry of Construction and Housing and other senior

government officials.

4 | P a g e

The study examined the view of the participants and the staff members of the extent to which the

guidelines are likely to help promote affordable housing.

37% of the participants reported that in their opinion the guidelines would contribute to a great

or very great extent to advancing affordable housing.

However, there were considerable differences among the sectors: 67% of the representatives

of civil society and local government, versus 25% in the business and government sectors.

Those respondents who were more pessimistic gave a number of reasons: not enough consensus on

key issues, including among key players and thus the document overly focused on dilemmas and

options; elected public representatives who could help promote the bill had not participated in the

process; a strategy for promoting the adoption of the guidelines had not been developed; some of the

key players became less committed to promoting the guidelines as a result of changes in the broader

political environment.

4. Evaluation of Program Implementation

The study examined a broad range of aspects related to the implementation of the program.

4.1 Recruitment of Participants

The participants were recruited under great time pressure, using methods that some of the staff

members felt not to be optimal. They felt that this led to a situation in which some of the participants

were not best suited to the program and that some were not sufficiently committed. Staff members

raised several suggestions to improve the process in the future, such as recruiting participants from

the civil society and business sectors by public announcement, conducting personal interviews with

all candidates before starting the program, and getting the directors general of the relevant ministries

to be more involved in the program.

4.2 Group Interaction and the Degree of Expression of the Different Sectors in the

Process

The participants reported that there was open communication and a cross-sectoral team spirit in the

group. In their opinion, the factor that most contributed to bringing the participants closer was the way

the program was the effective management and facilitation of the discussions. In contrast, the main

difficulty, they believed, was inconsistent attendance and changes in the groups' composition during

the program.

Opinions were divided as to the extent that the positions of the representatives of the various sectors

were expressed – "too little," "appropriate" or "too much."

Most of the participants felt that the positions of the representatives of the business sector and

local and central government were reflected to an appropriate extent (between 67% and 76%,

depending on the sector).

56% of the participants believed that the positions of the representatives of civil society were

reflected to an appropriate extent.

5 | P a g e

4.3 Duration of the Program

Most participants (65%) felt that the duration of each meeting and the amount of time between the

meetings were appropriate.

However, only 53% noted that the duration of the program was appropriate, while 37% felt the

program was too short.

Many participants noted the importance of continuing the program in order to follow up and promote

the implementation of the guidelines. In addition, they felt that the program should serve as an inter-

sectoral forum for discussion of affordable housing on an ongoing basis.

4.4 The Implementation of the Shared Learning Stage

The first part of the program was devoted to a process of shared learning about various aspects of

affordable housing in Israel and abroad and about the activities of the different sectors and their

views regarding affordable housing. The evaluation of this stage focused on the participants' views of

the time allocated to various aspects of this process and the extent that they thought some topics

were superfluous or had been omitted.

The majority participants noted that an appropriate amount of time was devoted to:

Team-building in the group (100%) and getting to know what the other sectors were doing

(89%)

Shared definitions of the program goals (79%) and the shared definitions of the concept of

affordable housing (74%)

Learning about affordable housing in Israel and abroad (53%).

The participants reported that none of the topics in the program were unnecessary, but there was a

need for more attention to the issue of financing housing needs.

4.5 The Implementation of the Plan of Action Stage

As noted, the second stage of the program was devoted to drafting guidelines for an affordable

housing law. 69% of the participants were pleased with the decision to concentrate on the guidelines

as the main focus of the program. 50% of them believed that an appropriate amount of time was

devoted to this, but 44% felt that the time was too short as a result of the shortening of that phase.

Some of the program participants – and all members of the staff – believed that the group was not

well enough prepared for the task with regard to their level of knowledge, trust, and sense of

commitment to the program. Some of the reasons given were that not enough time was allocated to

shared learning, and that the nature of the task was not known in advance, so they could not prepare

for it any earlier.

However, in the final analysis, most of the participants expressed satisfaction with all aspects of the

process. Between 84% and 100% of participants were satisfied with the openness of the participants

in the discussions, and the chance they were given to express their opinions and influence the

product. Between 67% and 72% of participants were satisfied with the level of involvement of the

other participants.

6 | P a g e

4.6 Overall Program Management

The vast majority of the participants (84%-100%) reported that they were satisfied to a great or very

great extent with the various aspects of program management: Organization, group facilitation,

flexibility in the structure and agenda of the program, responsiveness to participants' requests, and

the background/auxiliary materials distributed during the program.

The participants also emphasized their appreciation for the unique contribution of the professional

consultants. However, some of the participants noted that the specific expertise of the consultants led

them to focus on certain topics such as planning, at the expense of others, such as finance.

Some of the participants felt that sometimes changes were made to the program based on the

opinions of a few participants rather than on the input of the entire group.

5. Conclusion and Discussion

This section summarizes the main findings.

5.1 Program Goals

The program made efforts to enhance the involvement of each of the participants in addressing the

issue of affordable housing as well as promoting cooperation among them.

The participants greatly benefited in most of the areas promoted in the program: deeper and broader

knowledge and views on the issue; development of a multi-sectorial perspective; and the creation of

professional contacts on which to base further cooperation.

Thus, the program contributed to the development of a strong base for greater involvement and

greater cooperation to promote affordable housing.

Many reported that they had plans to expand their efforts. However, in the short time that it was

implemented, the program was less successful in converting these plans into actual steps. Thus, the

ultimate impact of the program needs to be examined over a longer period.

In addition, to understand these findings it is important to emphasize that in the ongoing strategizing

of the program, as it developed, there was a conflict between two very different plans of action:

A plan that would emphasize a range of concrete activities that different members of the group

could actively contribute to or lead in different collaborative constellations.

A plan that, as was actually decided upon, would emphasize one broad shared product that

could potentially have a broader overall impact. At the same time, the nature of the product that

was chosen addressed the highest level of policymaking and thus its implementation heavily

relays on the decisions of the government. It also provided fewer opportunities for many of the

members to be actively involved in the actual implementation.

At the end of the program, the group managed to produce a document with guidelines, dilemmas and

options to consider that was submitted to the government.

7 | P a g e

There were considerable differences among the sectors in their assessment of the expected

contribution these guidelines to the promotion of affordable housing: most of the participants from the

civil society and local government expected a considerable contribution, while the representatives of

the government and business sectors were less optimistic.

5.2 Differences in the Views of the Different Sectors

Overall, all sectors benefited from most of the aspects that the program sought to promote.

However, an interesting finding was that the representatives of the business sector reported

somewhat less than those from the other sectors that they had benefitted from aspects concerning

the gaining of knowledge and changing of views about affordable housing and development of multi-

sectoral perspective. In light of this, it is evidently important to give special attention to this sector and

its needs in this context.

In addition, as noted, there are distinct differences among the sectors in their appreciation of the

contribution of the guidelines developed during the program to the promotion of affordable housing in

Israel.

5.3 Management and Implementation of the Program

The participants expressed high levels of satisfaction with the management and implementation of

the program, including the process of working on the group product. The contribution of the

professional consultants was particularly cited.

Closing Remarks

It is important to note that many participants emphasized that it was important to continue the

program in order to promote the implementation of the guidelines and further multi-sectorial

cooperation on affordable housing in Israel.

8 | P a g e

Acknowledgments

Many people assisted us during the study.

We particularly wish to thank the program director, Guy Avrutzky, for his great assistance with the

study and his useful insights and comments throughout. Thanks to the professional consultants, Dr.

Chaim Fialkoff and Dr. Emily Silverman, for their cooperation and helpful comments; and to Hagai

Toledano, consultant to the director general of the Ministry of Construction and Housing and the

Ministry's representative on the program, for his involvement and support of the study.

We are grateful to the program participants for giving time and thought to completing the

questionnaires and taking part in the interviews.

Finally, thanks to our colleagues at the Myers-JDC-Brookdale Institute who helped us throughout with

their thoughts and comments, particularly to Prof. Jack Habib, the director, and to Malka Korazim.

We warmly thank Ronit Ben-Nun, who edited the report, and Leslie Klineman, who prepared it for

publication.

1 | P a g e

Table of Contents

1. Description of the Program 1

2. Study Design 5

3. Realization of Program Goals 7

4. Evaluation of Program Implementation 25

5. Appendices 44

Appendix 1: Planned Timetable 44

Appendix 2: List of Institutions and Organizations Represented in the Group 44

Bibliography 45